The local government in Basra demanded
the central Iraqi government to approve the country’s general budget
soon. It threatened to take special measures, including handling the
management of the affairs of the South Oil Co., located in Basra, and
its funds, in case the budget decision was delayed.The Basra Provincial Council
held a special session at the company’s headquarters to send a message
to the central government. The head of the council, Khalaf Abdul Samad,
in a statement to Al-Hayat said, “The session was like a pressure card
against the central government to urge it not to delay the approval of
the budget until the next parliamentary session. The council will also
submit an official statement to the parliament detailing what was
decided during the session.”

That wouldn't even be proposed if Nouri wasn't such a failure.

Iraq really needs a new prime minister.

Nouri's had two terms to fail in, it's time for a new prime minister.

I also agree with those who fear that a third term means Nouri becomes prime minister for life, the new Saddam Hussein.

Well why not? The US installed Nouri as prime minister in 2006. And Barack has a hissy fit and demanded a legal contract (The Erbil Agreement) give Nouri a second term after he lost the 2010 elections.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, campaigning
continues, USAID calls out War Crimes (but not in Iraq, of course),
Stephen Beecroft may be leaving Iraq, today's is the one-year
anniversary of Nouri's assault on the protesters in Hawija, War Criminal
Tony Blair still thinks the world needs him, and much more.

Seven days from now, Iraq is supposed to hold parliamentary elections. NINA notes that today US Ambassador to Iraq Stephen Beecroft declared that elections would be taking place April 30th. Osama al-Khafaji and Ghassan Hamid (Alsumaria) have noted that there are 9032 candidates competing for 328 seats. Reidar Visser (Gulf Analysis) examines the candidates who aren't running because they were disqualified:Firstly there are lists of those excluded, around 400 names, which
appeared in four separate batches released by the de-Baathification
committee in early February . Second, there is a list of those excluded
with reference to criminal charges (the first three batches along with
the criminal charges list is here; the separate fourth list is here). Thirdly, there is a list of those who were reinstated
from the first two batches of de-Baathification subsequent to the
appeals process (in some sources this has erroneously been described as a
fifth exclusion batch). Importantly, the lists of those subject to
de-Baathification give candidate names only, not list affiliation. It is
therefore very difficult to pin down their party affiliation,
especially so since many of them are not very prominent figures.
Advanced name searches on them on Google in Arabic will rarely return
any hits at all, even if a liberal number of name combinations is
attempted. However, there remains a key to establishing some links
between individual candidates and lists for at least a part of the
material. This relates to the 52 reinstated candidates, who appear in
the final list of election candidates and can therefore be identified by
party affiliation. Also, although no list of those reinstated in cases
not relating to de-Baathification has been published, for the smaller
number of reinstated candidates who were initially excluded with
reference to the “good reputation” requirement it is possible to search
through the final candidate list with the names of everyone who had been
reported as excluded. It is noteworthy though, that in both categories –
de-Baathification and “good reputation” – a large number of reinstated
candidates appear to have opted to remain off the list, despite having
regained the right to stand as candidates. One possible explanation,
especially for candidate far down on the list, is that their lists may
have deemed them to be more of a burden than an asset following the
suspicions unleashed by their initial disqualifications.

As has been the case with every provincial election and every
parliamentary election since the illegal war allegedly 'liberated' Iraq,
campaign season means politicians get targeted. Today? Alsumaria reports four homes were blown up in Sulaiman Bek, including one belonging to a candidate with Ayad Allawi's coaltion. All Iraq News notes
an attack on "some cars carrying leaflets [. . .] for Deputy Premier,
Salih al-Mutleq" in Tikrit.

While violence has become an expected occurrence at election time, this
year's elections will see a new development. This election, Iraq is
debuting electronic voter cards and not the ration cards that they used
in past elections. Monday Duraid Salman and Tarek Ammar (Alsumaria) reported that
the Independent High Electoral Commission notes that 85% of the new
electronic cards that will be required for voting have been distributed.
The elections are next Wednesday and they still haven't distributed
all the cards? You can't vote without the card this go-round.

Ambassador Beecroft Praises IHEC’s Efforts in Preparation for National Elections

April 23, 2014

U.S.
Ambassador Stephen Beecroft and U.S. Embassy staff met on Tuesday April 22 with
Mr. Sarbast Rashid Mustafa, the Chairman of the Independent Higher Electoral
Commission (IHEC) and Mr. Muqdad Alsharify, the Chief Electoral Officer of IHEC.
Chairman
Mustafa and CEO Alsharify outlined for the Ambassador the extensive plan that
IHEC has in place for the national election on April 30. The Ambassador
emphasized his appreciation for the professionalism and thoroughness of IHEC's
work under often very difficult circumstances and offered his condolences for
IHEC employees who have been killed or injured as a result of this essential work.The
Ambassador expressed the expectation of the United States that the electoral
process would reflect the will of the Iraqi people and that the Government of
Iraq would take every measure to ensure that Iraqi citizens would be able to
exercise their right to vote in a secure and fair environment. He relayed that he is confident that IHEC would
succeed in its mission of achieving a result that would be credible and
represent the democratic decision of the Iraqi people.The
United States has consistently emphasized with Iraqi officials from across the
political spectrum of the importance for the election to take place on time and
has fully supported the independence of IHEC as defined in the Iraqi
constitution.

Chairman Mustafa extended his appreciation for
the technical support provided by the U.S. Government for conducting transparent
and credible elections in Iraq.

Apathetic Iraqis and problems with the voter rolls offer
loopholes for political parties to exploit the new cards. Shafaq News for
example interviewed a member of the Election Commission in Kirkuk who said that
voting cards were going for as much as $500 a piece. The article claimed that
people who were not going to vote were willing to sell their cards. With voting
participation at 50% out of approximately 20 million registered voters
that provides a huge pool of people to purchase cards from. In another example,
Niqash ran an article in
April that included a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan who said that
parties in the northern region were buying up voting cards as well. Another
area of potential abuse is the fact that Iraq does not have up to date voter
information. There has not been a census for decades because of the political
differences between the ruling parties. Instead the Election Commission relies
upon information provided by the Ministry of Trade and the food ration system
that it operates. There are plenty of reports about the problems this presents.
The IHEC for instance, announced in March that it had withdrawn 32,000 voting cards
that it found were for the deceased or duplicate names. There are likely
several thousand more of these types of wrongly issued cards still out there,
because of the flawed nature of the voting rolls. Ironically the Election
Commission went with these cards to try to cut down on fraud and cheating. In
October 2013 it signed a $130 million 5-year deal with a Spanish company to
create the voting cards. They have to be produced with one other piece of
identification for anyone to vote. If parties are dishing up hundreds of
dollars however to buy them they will have the money to forge other ID’s as
well. These are obviously huge problems which the IHEC is aware of, but has
limited time and money to try to fix especially since the balloting is only
days away.

Barbara Slavin can be a real idiot. If her recent ridiculous piece
hadn't been at the Voice of America, I would have linked to it. I
wouldn't have called her the names that many Americans would have -- I
would have just called her stupid and grossly insensitive (her piece was
'get over it, America, Iran can pick whomever they want for an
ambassador). She's a stupid woman and a deeply troubled one whose
personal demons effect her work. At Al-Monitor, she writes an embarrassing and vapid piece following her soft-ball interview with Iraq's Ambassador to the US Lukman Faily. We'll note this from the article:After the 2010 elections, it took Iraqis nine months to form a new
government and this could happen again, with Maliki serving in an acting
capacity, said the ambassador, who comes from Maliki's Dawa Party. “The
key challenge is that most of the political blocs don’t have clear red
lines, which creates confusion and misreading of each other,” he said.
“You may have prolonged government formation after. Historically it
wasn’t quick. But the concept of time is not as crucial for us as in the
Western concept.”Among the tough decisions on hold until after elections: agreement on how much of their oil Kurds can export through Turkey
and how much revenue they will get from the central government. Faily
said the Kurds are not the only ones who are looking for more resources
from Iraq’s oil wealth. “We get more calls from the governor of Basra
than from the KRG on this issue,” he said.At the same time, Faily said that oil remains the “gel” for society
and could keep Iraq from fragmenting into three or more pieces. “There
is enough oil there for everybody to be prosperous,” he said.

Slavin's a disaster as a reporter. She can take dictation, that's about
all she can do. That and normalize the notion that months is acceptable
for forming a government. No, it's not. The process is supposed to
take mere weeks for a prime minister-designate to be named and then he
or she has 30 days to form a Cabinet.

It is a sign of failure of the democratic process that the government is
unable to do their damn job. This actually happened in 2006 as well.

That's a detail a reporter would know, Babs. Parliamentary elections
took place in December 2005. Nouri is named prime minister-designate in
April of 2006 and becomes prime minister at the end of May 2006.

She also doesn't question Faily's claim that, "There is enough oil there
for everybody to be prosperous" when the reality is that vast numbers
of Iraqis live in poverty.

The election is being held while he is the commander-in-chief of the
Armed Forces and all military and security forces are under his personal
command without any legal check. For more than four years he has
directly controlled the ministries of Interior, Defence, Security and
Communications, in total breach of the Erbil Agreement; he has filled
all key posts with his own men, and through influencing the judiciary
has trampled on its independence and brought Iraqi judges under direct
political control. In a similarly contemptuous and illegal move he has
repeatedly refused requests to appear before the elected parliament and
provide explanations for his authoritarian behaviour.
Last year, the Iraqi parliament adopted a resolution whereby none of
the three key posts of prime minister, president and speaker of
parliament, could be occupied by any one person for more than two
consecutive 4-year terms. However, through influencing the judicial
system, he declared this law unconstitutional, despite the fact that the
constitution does not bestow such authority on the judicial system.

The prime
minister emphasized Shia dominance in state institutions and has changed
the dynamics of Shia politics. In his second term, Maliki took
advantage of deficits in power-sharing agreements. Using the powerful
patronage available to him as chief executive, he pursued a policy of
“divide and rule” in dealing with other parties. He filled vacant
positions in the military and administration with his loyalists and
augmented the powers of his office and of networks related to him
personally, thereby creating a kind of “shadow state” within the
government. He gave more influence to independent commissions such as
the de-Baathification committee, the Communication and Media Commission,
the Iraqi Media Network, the Central Bank of Iraq, and the Commission
of Integrity. He managed to greatly subjugate the federal court and
forge an alliance with its chief that helped him encircle his opponents
and weaken their ability to check his power through the parliament. The
fact that Iraq is a rentier state and the Iraqi economy is largely
dependent on oil revenue has also tended to empower the executive branch
and those forces that seek to establish a more centralized state. Maliki’s ability to consolidate power sent warning signals to his
Shia rivals and forced Ammar al-Hakim, the leader of the ISCI, and Sadr
to overcome the traditional competition between their families and work
together to face Maliki. Sadr has become a fierce critic of the prime
minister and described Maliki’s actions as “dictatorial.” In 2012, Sadr
expressed unusual defiance when he aligned with the Kurdish leader
Massoud Barzani and Sunni forces to initiate a move to unseat Maliki
through a vote of no confidence. However, even then, Sadr kept within
the communal power-sharing framework by announcing that Kurds and Sunni
Arabs accepted that the new prime minister should also come from the
Shia alliance.3 Although the move to force Maliki out of
power was aborted due to Iranian opposition and the reluctance of Iraqi
President Jalal Talabani to support it, Sadr continued his criticism of
the Shia prime minister and promised his followers that he would not
support the prime minister’s efforts to win a third term.

Over on the right is neocon Kimberly Kagan's Institute For The Study Of War and, writing for them, Ahmed Ali argues:Maliki’s
State of Law Alliance (SLA) did not fare well in the provincial
elections in 2013, causing Maliki to re-think his 2014 campaign. SLA
member Salman al-Musawi stated on March 10, 2014 that the SLA is not
dependent on political blocs in order to secure Maliki a third term, but
rather is dependent on his popularity among voters.1 This message
demonstrates a broader trend of targeting local communities for votes in
the 2014 elections. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s SLA will again
compete internally for Iraqi Shi‘a votes with the Citizens’ Bloc of the
Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and the Ahrar Alliance,
representing the Sadrists. This internal Shi‘a competition may cause the
national elections to serve as a referendum on Maliki’s continued
rule.

The vote among Iraq’s Arab Sunnis may be split among Council of
Representatives Speaker Osama al-Nujaifi’s Mutahidun (United) for
Reform, Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq’s Arabiyya alliance, and
Ayad Allawi’s secularist Wataniyya Alliance. The Kurdish PUK and the KDP
will also compete separately for the first time in several northern
provinces for the Iraqi Kurdish vote. Rather than ethno-sectarian unity,
2014 pre-elections behaviors bear a new quality of principled
pluralism.

Beginning with the US invasion and
occupation of Iraq in 2003 and continuing under its proxy vassal Prime
Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens have been
tortured, jailed and murdered. Iraq’s ruling junta, has continued to
rely on US military and Special Forces and to engage in the same kinds
of military and police ‘sweeps’ which eviscerate any democratic
pretensions. Al-Maliki relies on special branches of his secret police,
the notorious Brigade 56, to assault opposition communities and
dissident strongholds. Both the Shi’a regime and Sunni opposition engage
in ongoing terror-warfare. Both have served as close collaborators with
Washington at different moments.

The weekly death toll runs in the
hundreds. The Al-Maliki regime has taken over the torture centers
(including Abu Ghraib), techniques and jails previously headed and run
by the US and have retained US ‘Special Forces’ advisers, overseeing the
round-up of human rights critics, trade unionists and democratic
dissidents.

That's not about the campaign per se but in the US the left -- or the
hustler left -- doesn't give a damn about Iraq. I'm left, I care about
Iraq, but supposedly The Progressive, The Nation, blah blah blah are
left and they can't be bothered with Iraq. (If Joel Wing or Reidar
Visser see themselves as left, my apologies to them. Although both have
bent to Nouri's will too often for my tastes, I don't see them as right
or left but more centrist analysts.) But Petras' remarks are about
the election in that he's focusing on the state of Iraq at a time when
parliamentary elections are just around the corner.

The Middle East Institute's Fanar Haddad has published a paper today entitled "Sectarian Relations and Sunni Identity in Post-Civil War Iraq."For example, many have fairly asked why Iraqi state television,
namely Al Iraqiya, airs the confessions of dozens of (Sunni)
terrorists but never of a (Shi‘i) militia commander? For that matter,
why
are diﬀerent terms applied to Sunni and Shi‘i militant groups, namely
terrorists and militias, if not to deny any moral equivalence between
them? A remarkable example of double standards is how the state deals
with the Mahdi Army and other Shi‘i militant groups: why is it that an
organization heavily involved in the civil war, and parts of which are
responsible for atrocious crimes, is allowed to hold public events and
rallies with state approval? And why is the extension of similar
courtesies
to any Sunni militants unthinkable? Such questions reinforce the
con-viction that the new Iraq directly or otherwise targets Sunni Arabs.
Te
depth of Sunni feelings of encirclement is perhaps best illustrated in
the
claim made by some that they had personally seen banners in Baghdad on 9
April 2003 displaying the slogan “No Sunnis after today.”

While the State Dept refused to confront Nouri or even call him out after the massacre, the BRussells Tribunal carried a translation of one activist who was an eye-witness to what went down:

I am Thamer Hussein Mousa from the village of Mansuriya in the district
of Hawija. I am disabled. My left arm was amputated from the shoulder
and my left leg amputated from the hip, my right leg is paralyzed due to
a sciatic nerve injury, and I have lost sight in my left eye.
I have five daughters and one son. My son’s name is Mohammed Thamer. I
am no different to any other Iraqi citizen. I love what is good for my
people and would like to see an end to the injustice in my country.
When we heard about the peaceful protests in Al-Hawija, taking place at
‘dignity and honor square’, I began attending with my son to reclaim
our usurped rights. We attended the protests every day, but last Friday
the area of protest was besieged before my son and I could leave; just
like all the other protestors there.
Food and drink were forbidden to be brought into the area….
On the day of the massacre (Tuesday 23 April 2013) we were caught by
surprise when Al-Maliki forces started to raid the area. They began by
spraying boiling water on the protestors, followed by heavy helicopter
shelling. My little son stood beside me. We were both injured due to the
shelling.
My son, who stood next to my wheelchair, refused to leave me alone. He
told me that he was afraid and that we needed to get out of the area. We
tried to leave. My son pushed my wheelchair and all around us, people
were falling to the ground.
Shortly after that, two men dressed in military uniforms approached us.
One of them spoke to us in Persian; therefore we didn’t understand what
he said. His partner then translated. It was nothing but insults and
curses. He then asked me “Handicapped, what do you want?” I did not
reply. Finally I said to him, “Kill me, but please spare my son”. My son
interrupted me and said, “No, kill me but spare my father”. Again I
told him “Please, spare my son. His mother is waiting for him and I am
just a tired, disabled man. Kill me, but please leave my son”. The man
replied “No, I will kill your son first and then you. This will serve
you as a lesson.” He then took my son and killed him right in front of
my eyes. He fired bullets into his chest and then fired more rounds. I
can’t recall anything after that. I lost consciousness and only woke up
in the hospital, where I underwent surgery as my intestines were hanging
out of my body as a result of the shot.
After all of what has happened to me and my little son – my only son,
the son who I was waiting for to grow up so he could help me – after all
that, I was surprised to hear Ali Ghaidan (Lieutenant General,
Commander of all Iraqi Army Ground Forces) saying on television, “We
killed terrorists” and displaying a list of names, among them my name:
Thamer Hussein Mousa.
I ask you by the name of God, I appeal to everyone who has a shred of
humanity. Is it reasonable to label me a terrorist while I am in this
situation, with this arm, and with this paralyzed leg and a blind eye?
I ask you by the name of God, is it reasonable to label me a terrorist?
I appeal to all civil society and human rights organizations, the
League of Arab States and the Conference of Islamic States to consider
my situation; all alone with my five baby daughters, with no one to
support us but God. I was waiting for my son to grow up and he was
killed in this horrifying way.

I hold Obama responsible for this act because he is the one who gave
them these weapons. The weapons and aircrafts they used and fired upon
us were American weapons. I also hold the United States of America
responsible for this criminal act, above all, Obama.

A ridiculous official made a ridiculous statement today. USAID's Nancy Lindborg declared on tonight's NewsHour (PBS) that the Sudanese government is "targeting women and children. That's a War Crime."

Is that a War Crime?

That?

What about the above, Nance? Huh? UNICEF counts 8 children dead. What about that?

Or how about the targeting of civilians in Falluja. It's been going on
for months now, Nouri's ordered residential neighborhoods in Falluja
bombed. NINA notes that today's bombings left five civilians injured.
Is that not a War Crime because it meets the legal definition of a War
Crime.

Whores like Nancy always want to scream "War Crime!" if it'll help them start a war.

But to scream it about Iraq?

Useless Nancy knows if the government admits it's a War Crime, the US
government, all aid to Nouri's thuggish government ceases and that's the
real point that USAID doesn't want to talk about.

The neocons are back. That toxic blend of messianic warmongering
abroad and McCarthyite witch-hunting at home – which gave us Iraq,
Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the London bombings – is coursing through
our public life again. Yesterday the liberal interventionists' hero,
Tony Blair, was once more demanding military action against the "threat
of radical Islam".Reprising the theme that guided him and George
Bush through the deceit and carnage of the "war on terror", the former
prime minister took his crusade against "Islamism" on to a new plane.
The west should, he demanded, make common cause with Russia and China to
support those with a "modern" view against the tide of political Islam.

Richard Norton-Taylor (Guardian) explains the Royal United Services Institute has issued a study, "In a passage with added piquancy given Tony Blair's appeal to western leaders on Wednesday
to counter more vigorously the threat of Islamic extremism, the study
says there is no longer any serious disagreement over the fact that
Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq served to channel and
increase the radicalisation of young British Muslims."

The Daily Mail states, "Tony Blair today admitted that his
military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has made the West less
inclined to tackle radical Islam."
In his speech, he did mention Iraq -- four times.

1) "We have been through painful engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq."

2) "But wherever you look – from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon
to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan –
this is the essential battle."

3) "We change the regimes in Afghanistan and in Iraq, put soldiers on the
ground in order to help build the country, a process which a majority of
people in both countries immediately participated in, through the
elections. But that proved immensely difficult and bloody."

4) "In saying this, it does not mean that we have to repeat the enormous commitment of Iraq and Afghanistan."

Four times and nothing of value. Four times and no accountability. He felt the need to offer his overview on
five countries specifically but Iraq wasn't one of them. Egypt, Syria,
Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Iran, Blair wanted to discuss. Iraq? He
wasn't so keen on the topic.

That's strange because he could have talked about Iraq and noted today's one year anniversary.

That bloodbath captures modern Iraq where, if you speak out, Nouri will
have you killed. If your parents speak out -- as 8 children learned
last year -- Nouri will have you killed.

That's the state of Iraq where thug Nouri is attempting to go for a third term as prime minister.

Again, Tony Blair didn't reflect on Iraq. He chose five countries and Iraq wasn't one of them.

He had nothing to say that the world needed to hear. But his yacking may
have been intended to serve as a distraction, preventing people from
focusing on other things. Jack Sommers (Huffington Post) reports:

A former minister in Tony Blair's government has said the report of
the official inquiry into the Iraq War must be published immediately,
after prolonged delays.Former MP Lord Morris, who served as attorney general between 1997
and 1999, said the delays in publishing the findings of the Chilcot
Inquiry were "a national scandal" and said there was "a real danger" it
would still not be public by the 2015 general election.

Matt Chorley (Daily Mail) adds:Mr Brown launched the inquiry by Sir John Chilcot in June 2009, soon after becoming Prime Minister.The inquiry last took evidence from a witness three years ago.There
is mounting speculation that the process of declassifying documents,
including Mr Blair’s correspondence with President George W Bush before
the war, has stalled.

Last week Deputy Prime Minister Nick
Clegg expressed his frustration at the lengthy delays and suggested Mr
Blair is to blame – a claim denied by the former prime minister’s
office.Today Lord Morris,
who spent two decades on the Labour frontbench, warned there is ‘now the
real danger is that the publication will run into the 2015 election’.

If you unpick the central allegation that is implicit in blaming Blair
for the delay, it is that he is using his influence to encourage the
Cabinet Office to block disclosure of what he said and wrote to George
Bush. He is entitled to take the view that such disclosure is not going
to happen and that in failing to move on, the Inquiry is respsonsible
for the delay. Therefore the question “are you responsible” is always
going to result in a denial that is worthless. No-one has actually asked
him whether he is encouraging the Cabinet Office to suppress certain
documents.